`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORYSYSTEMSLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Micron Technology,Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper1,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,233,181 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the °181 patent”). Limestone Memory
`
`Systems LLC (“Patent Owner’’) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper6,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`. there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`For the reasonsset forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
`
`and 7 of the ’181 patent, but does not demonstrate a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 3 and 5 ofthe
`
`"181 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to claims1,
`
`2, 4, 6, and 7 of the °181 patent on the grounds specified below.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’181 patent is the subject of several cases
`
`in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`Pet. 2-3; Paper 5, 2-3. Theparties also indicate that the following petitions
`
`for inter partes review are related to this case:
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 3; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`B.
`
`The ’18/] Patent
`
`The ’181 patent relates to repairing defective memorycells ina
`
`semiconductor memory device. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9-13. The ’181 patent
`
`explains that, when a memorycell becomesdefective, it can be replaced
`
`with a spare memorycell. /d. at col. 1, ll. 15-18. According to the
`
`°181 patent, prior semiconductor memory devices contained an array of
`
`spare memory cells for each memoryblockin the device, and, as a result, the
`
`spare memorycells were not usedefficiently. Jd. at col. 3, 1. 58-col. 4, 1. 8.
`
`To address this problem, the ’181 patent describes a semiconductor memory
`
`device with an array of spare memorycells that can be shared among a
`
`plurality of memoryblocks. /d. at col. 16,Il. 31-39.
`
`C.=Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is independent and is reproduced below.
`
`1. A semiconductor memory device, comprising:
`a plurality of first memory blocks each havinga plurality
`of first normal memory cells arranged in a matrix of rows and
`columns,each ofsaid plurality of first memory blocks
`including wordlines provided corresponding to said rows,
`respectively, and the first memory blocks aligned in the column
`direction; and
`
`a plurality of first spare memorycells arranged in a
`matrix of rows and columnsin a particular one ofsaid plurality
`of first memory blocks, each row ofsaid plurality offirst spare
`memorycells being capable of replacing a defective row
`including a defective first normal memorycell in said plurality
`of first memoryblocks.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 45, 1. 55—col. 46, |. 8.
`
`D.
`
`Evidence ofRecord
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration (see
`
`Pet. 4—5):
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 B1
`
`Reference or Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 5,487,040 (issued Jan. 23, 1996)
`“Sukegawa”’
`U.S. Patent No. 4,967,397 (issued Oct. 30, 1990) (“Walck”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`Betty Prince, Semiconductor Memories: A Handbook of
`Design, Manufacture, and Application (2d ed. 1992)
`“Prince”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,355,339 (issued Oct. 11, 1994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009.
`
` “Oh”
`
`
`Ex. 1010
`[~.=Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds(see Pet. 4-5):
`|Claim(s)|BasisReference(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`§ 103(a
`35 U.S.C.
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Sukegawa and Walck
`Sukegawa and Oh
`
`
`
`
`Tl.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
`
`F.3d 1268, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Petitioner proposes
`
`construing the following claim terms: “wordlines,” “spare memory cells,”
`
`and “sense amplifier bands.” Pet. 12-15. Patent Owner arguesthat there is
`
`no controversy regarding those claims terms, and, thus, no construction is
`
`necessary at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 7-12. Onthis
`
`record and for purposesofthis decision, we agree with Patent Owner and
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`B.|Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. R. Jacob Baker,testifies that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’181 patent “would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a closely related field, along with at least 2-3 years of experience
`
`in the development and use of memory devices and systems.” Ex. 1007
`
`417. Dr. Bakeralso explains that “[a]n individual with an advanced degree
`
`in a relevant field, such as computerorelectrical engineering, would require
`
`less experience in the development and use of memory devices and
`
`systems.” Jd. Patent Ownerargucs that Dr. Baker has substantially morc
`
`experience than a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent
`
`Owner, however, does not identify any precedent indicating that Dr. Baker
`
`cannottestify about the level of ordinary skill in the art simply because he
`
`may possessa higherlevel of skill in the art. Jd. Therefore, on this record
`
`and for purposes ofthis decision, we credit Dr. Baker’s testimony regarding
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, and 6 over Sukegawa
`2.
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, and 6 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa. Pet. 4. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`
`evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner demonstrates a
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 2, and 6 would
`
`have been obvious over Sukegawa. See id. at 21-39.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plurality of first memory blocks each having a
`
`plurality of first normal memorycells arranged in a matrix of rows and
`
`columns,each ofsaid plurality of first memory blocks including wordlines
`
`provided corresponding to said rows, respectively, and the first memory
`
`blocks aligned in the column direction.” Ex. 1001, col. 45, 1. 56-col. 46,
`
`1.2. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that memory blocks 100, 104,
`
`108, and 112 in Figure 8 of Sukegawaare a plurality of first memory blocks
`
`each having a plurality of normal memorycells arranged in a matrix of rows
`
`and columns. Pet. 22—28 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 1, ll. 39-54, col. 4, Il. 45-63,
`
`Figs. 1, 2, 8). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that memory
`
`blocks 100, 104, 108, and 112 are aligned in the columndirection and
`
`include word lines corresponding to rows. Pet. 24—29 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`col. 1, ll. 55-64, Figs. 1, 2, 8). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawa teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “a plurality of first spare memorycells arranged
`
`in a matrix of rows and columnsin a particular one of said plurality of first
`
`memoryblocks, each rowofsaid plurality of first spare memorycells being
`
`capable of replacing a defective row including a defective first normal
`
`memorycell in said plurality of first memory blocks.” Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`ll. 3-8. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that each of memory blocks
`
`100, 104, 108, and 112 contains a redundant row of memorycells that is
`
`capable of replacing a defective row of memorycells in that memory block
`
`or any of the other memory blocks. Pet. 30-32 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 2,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Il. 21-59, col. 3, ll. 34-43, Fig. 8). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawateaches the abovelimitation of claim 1.
`
`Claims 2 and 6 depend from independent claim 1. Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`Il. 9-23, col. 46, Il. 51-54. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Sukegawateachesthe limitations of dependent claims 2 and 6. Pet. 32-39.
`Onthis record, Petitioner has shownsufficiently that Sukegawa teachesthe
`
`limitations of claims 2 and 6.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 3 over Sukegawa and Prince
`3.
`Petitioner argues that claim 3 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Prince. Pet. 4-5. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions
`
`and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below,Petitioner
`
`does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`
`claim 3 would have been obvious over SukegawaandPrince.
`
`Claim 3 recites “a plurality of sense amplifier bands provided between
`
`each of said plurality of first memoryblocks and each of said sccond
`
`memory blocks, and shared by adjacent memoryblocksin the column
`
`direction for sensing and amplifying data in each column of the adjacent
`
`memoryblock including a selected memory cell when activated.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 46, Il. 24-31. Petitioner argues that Figure 1 of Sukegawa shows a
`
`plurality of sense amplifier bands provided between each ofthe plurality of
`
`first and second memory blocks. Pet. 39-40 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1).
`
`Figure 1 of Sukegawadoes not show the boundaries of the memoryblocks,
`
`and, thus, does not show whether the sense amplifier bands are provided
`
`between each of the memoryblocks. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. As a result,
`
`Petitioner annotates Figure 1 to show what Petitioner believes are the
`
`boundaries of the memory blocks with respect to the sense amplifier bands.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`Pet. 39-40. Petitioner, however, does not provide an explanation or identify
`
`evidence that supports Petitioner’s annotations to Figure 1, beyond including
`
`the same annotations as part of Appendix A of the Baker Declaration.! Jd.;
`
`Ex. 1007, A-30—A-32. Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not shown
`
`sufficiently that Sukegawateachesa plurality of sense amplifier bands
`
`provided between eachofthe plurality of first and second memory blocks.
`
`Petitioner argues that Figure 6.25(b) of Prince shows a sense amplifier
`
`that is shared by adjacent memoryblocks. Pet. 41-42 (citing Ex. 1009, 47—
`
`48, Fig. 6.25(b)). Figure 6.25(b) of Prince does not show the boundaries of
`
`the memory blocks, and, thus, does not show whetherthe sense amplifieris
`
`shared by adjacent memory blocks. Ex. 1009, Fig. 6.25(b). Asaresult,
`
`Petitioner annotates Figure 6.25(b) to show whatPetitioner believes are the
`boundariesofthe memoryblockswith respect to the sense amplifier.
`Pet. 41-42. Petitioner, however, does not provide an explanation oridentify
`
`evidence that supports Pctitioncr’s annotations to Figure 6.25(b). Id.
`
`Petitioner points out that Prince teachesthat “‘|a]djacent segments were
`
`grouped into pairs of open bit-lines to form eight memoryblocks of 128k
`
`bits each.” Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1009, 47). Petitioner does not explain,
`
`though, why that teaching in Prince showsthat the bit lines in Figure 6.25(b)
`
`are in adjacent memory blocks, rather than the same memory block. Pet.
`
`' Further, Patent Ownercalls into question Petitioncr’s annotations by
`arguing that the sense amplifier bands in Sukegawaactually are provided
`within each of the memory blocks, not between each of the memory blocks.
`Prelim. Resp. 16-19 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 1, ll. 39-44, Fig. 1). Patent
`Owner’s argumenthighlights the deficiency in Petitioner’s position because
`Petitioner did not provide an explanation as to why we should interpret
`Sukegawain the manner presented by Petitioner.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`41-42. Thus,on this record, Petitioner has not shownsufficiently that
`
`Prince teaches a sense amplifier band shared by adjacent memory blocks.
`
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 3 would have been
`
`obvious over Sukegawa and Prince.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 4 over Sukegawa and Prince
`4.
`Petitioner argues that claim 4 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Prince. Pet. 5. Claim 4 recites “the first memory blocks and
`
`the second memory blocks share a circuit related to a memorycell selection
`
`operation.” Ex. 1001, col. 46, Il. 32-35. Petitioner identifies evidence
`
`indicating that Prince teaches a column decoder shared by multiple memory
`
`blocks, and articulates a reason why it would have been obvious to combine
`
`the cited teachings of Prince with the cited teachings of Sukegawa. Pet. 44—
`
`47 (citing Ex. 1007 ¥ 23; Ex. 1009, 47). Therefore, on this record, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4
`
`would have been obvious over SukegawaandPrince.
`
`5.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 5 over Sukegawa and Walck
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 5 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Walck. Pet. 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 3. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 46, ll. 36-50. As discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in showing that claim 3 would have been
`
`obvious over SukegawaandPrince. See supra Section I.B.2. Petitioner
`
`does not argue that Walck compensates for any of the deficiencies noted
`
`above with respect to Sukegawaand Prince. See Pet. 49-52. Therefore, for
`
`the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3, Petitioner does not
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 5
`
`would have been obvious over Sukegawa and Walck.
`
`6.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 7 over Sukegawa and Oh
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 7 would have been obvious over
`
`Sukegawa and Oh. Pet. 5. Claim 7 recites “the first memory blocks other
`
`than said particular one hasnofirst spare memorycells.” Ex. 1001, col. 46,
`
`Il. 55-57. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Oh teaches providing
`
`spare memorycells in only one memory block andusing those spare
`
`memory cells to replace defective memorycells in other memoryblocks.
`
`Pet. 53-55 (citing Ex. 1010, col. 6, Il. 19-33). Petitioner also articulates a
`
`reason why it would have been obvious to combinethe cited teachings of Oh
`
`with the cited teachings of Sukegawa. Pet. 56. Therefore, on this record,
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`
`claim 7 would have been obvious over Sukegawa and Oh.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’181 patent, but
`
`does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 3 and 5 of the ’181 patent. At this stage in the
`
`proceeding, we have not madea final determination with respect to the
`
`patentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is herebyinstituted as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’181 patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Sukegawa;
`
`B.
`
`Claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over SukegawaandPrince; and
`
`C.
`
`Claim 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Sukegawa and Oh;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`
`partes review of the ’181 patent is hereby instituted commencingon the
`
`entry date of this Order, and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution ofa trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthatthetrial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified, and no other groundsare authorized.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00096
`Patent 6,233,181 Bl
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Justin L. Constant
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`jason.lang@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul B. Henkelmann
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`LimestoneIPR@fitcheven.com
`
`12
`
`